Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld.
If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works.
To use all features of this page, you should consider registering.
Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process.
If you are already registered, please login here.

Royal Navy Ships for 1948

Playing around with a new submarine for the 1948 Programme. I expect to build at least 15 of this class to replace the last of the P Class.
I no longer see any point in coastal/oceanic mix submarines and this sub is designed for range and quiet and good speed.

If you want quiet, you should add some silent running engines like I did on my last few designs.

I feel that your submarine lacks battery output for a submarine that focuses more on its electric engines than its diesel engines. It is not really proper to compare it to the I-310 (considering that it is something like twice as large), but that one can last almost 50 minutes at 17 knots (and 21 minutes at its top speed of 20 knots).

It is also kinda flat like most of our other incorrectly simmed Wesworld submarines. These days, for a normal submarine I prefer a d:b > 0.80 to resemble the OTL subs more (and no, I-402 is not a normal submarine).

Another design for 1948 is an export version of the new Bay Class sloop.
Think of this as the historical HMS Mermaid as built for Ghana but a double-ended with a 4.5in mount at each end.
Almost identical to the Bay she loses some advanced sonars, keeps Squid and gains six fixed TT tubes. The 4.5in mounts are old shielded mounts in plentiful supply. She still has a powerful fire-control system too.

I can see Iraq and Egypt getting some of these to replace their older 1922 Class torpedo gunboats.

Quoted

How do you make an engine run silently?

Quieter I can envisage, but silently?

I did not mean that the engines run silently, but they are for silent running (two different things). To me, silent running electric motors =/= silent, but these small engines will be more quiet than your big normal electric engines (especially when you go for high underwater speeds) which is what you want when you have a bunch of angry ASW ships racing around above your head somewhere trying to avenge the lighthouse you just torpedoed.

Wiki lists the Type XXI as having two 223shp SSW GV232/28 silent running electric motors besides the two 4900shp SSW GU365/30 double-acting electric motors and that gave me the idea to apply the silent running engines to my most recent subs. Considering that they are two completely different engines, they should both be simmed separately and added up for your ElecHP in Subsim.

Carriers Q, R, S, T

Thoughts about these ships have been buzzing around my head for the last sim year. Pretty much these are a beefed up Leviathan Class with newer kit, a deck-edge lift added and steam catapults.
No angled decks, perhaps by the time these complete in 1952-54 such things might be in the pipeline and the last two may receive alterations on the stocks. Since cruiser construction is slowing down and no more capital ships are ever likely, its been decided to build 4 rather than 2 of these ships. The rest of the Majestics will probably be retired as these complete.

Interesting as I have been looking at a new design carrier class of four vessels for 1948 as well (though they are a bit more along the lines of the OTL Shinano).

I am not sure how you simmed it, but 16 spare planes require 400 tons, 1282 tons is used to sim the flight deck armor so there is at this point already less than 8500 tons of miscellaneous weights left. Then there are the heavy duty elevators, the steam catapults and all the electronic stuff and perhaps some more miscellaneous stuff which I will set at a modest total of 500 tons. This would leave you with ~6800 tons which is good for about 82 planes max, not 80-120. I would actually set it to 54-82 instead.

Actually looking at the previous big UK carrier (Audacious), it has a similar issue and it has even less miscellaneous weight making it doubtful that it can even reach the 80 planes with the remaining miscellaneous weight.

... and that is ignoring the "armored flight deck" bit in the springstyle notes...

Walter, try as I might I can't get my loadings to exceed 9,000 tons, although I've dropped back to 96 aircraft now as 120 would be for smaller piston types and would need a deck park. With current sizes and bigger jets 96 seems optimum.

In calculating aircraft capacity under our guidelines, 96 aircraft would require a miscellaneous weight of more than 9,000 tons - representing space needed to maintain them. While the size of the ship might allow for more aircraft, the guidance specifies the lower of the two numbers.

Yeah, I can see where I went wrong now, totally forgot about the whole square root thingy and had just done the 96x25 calculation.
I don't think its going to be a big problem to add a little more margin in the final report.

Quoted

In calculating aircraft capacity under our guidelines, 96 aircraft would require a miscellaneous weight of more than 9,000 tons

Well, as I indicated after subtracting all the other requirements of miscellaneous weights, you might end up with slightly more than 2/3 of that number.

When you look at Japan's Shokaku class, it has 10,000 tons of miscellaneous weights, 8,100 of them being for 90 planes. The Hiyo is about 35% larger than the Shokaku and it carries twice the amount of miscellaneous weights (20,000 tons with 14400 tons for 120 planes). Lots of planes require lots of miscellaneous weights. I had even more planes planned for the 1948 Ishinagenjo class, but in the end decided it was too expensive and saved almost 4,000 tons by going for the same number of planes as the Shokaku and use the gained hull strength for lots of other things (though for some strange reason I ended up with almost the same amount of miscellaneous weights as I used when I had much more planes on it).

Quoted

Walter, try as I might I can't get my loadings to exceed 9,000 tons

Of course you can! You control Britain! You can do almost anything! Shokaku comfortably exceeds 9,000 tons, is more than 5,000 tons lighter and is 12 years older! if Rice Paper Boat Builders can do that, then surely Mighty Britain can do that as well!

The colossus uses a shallower and finer hull than the Shokaku. The Colossus gains less hull strength with its length and width than Shokaku does with its depth and BC.

If I keep the 850 feet length, use a 32 ft draught and a BC of 0.531 and drop the beam to 108 feet, I will have a 44,568 ton (normal) vessel and have gained 0.10 hull strength.
If I keep the 120 feet beam, use a 32 ft draught and a BC of 0.531 and drop the length to 765 feet, I will have a 44,568 ton (normal) vessel and have gained 0.12 hull strength.

As you can see, in both cases, the ships is slightly lighter than you 44,619 tons, but gained a significant amount of hull strength. Based on that and a few more tests, hull strength gains from best to worst are: draught, BC, beam, length. Conclusion: When it comes to Spring Sharp, Draught rocks and Length sucks.

There are a few other aspects as well. Shokaku's main belt is 120 ft shorter and 4ft less tall and even though it has a TBH coverage from the bottom all the way up to the waterline, it is 290 ft shorter. Fuel also eats up a lot of hull strength. The 20,000 nm @ 16 kts range eats up 0.19 hull strength compared to a 12,000 nm @ 15 kts range. Shokaku's slightly higher l:b ratio probably helps as well when it comes to the power needed for 33 kts.

So you can definitely get more out of it, but it all depends on whether you are willing to sacrifice some other aspects of the carrier to get the additional miscellaneous weights tonnage or not.

Quoted

With current sizes and bigger jets 96 seems optimum.

Actually, jets are 2/3 the number of WW2 and pre WW2 planes so with the 82 planes I calculated in the previous post, this ship can only carry 54 jets which is why I set the estimate at 54-82 instead of your 80-120. 54 is the maximum for all jets and 82 for all WW2 and older planes and any mix of them is somewhere in between.

Edit: actually with that small amount of miscellaneous weights, it is only enough for 32-48 planes...
Edit 2: does give me some ideas for my Wesworld Super Carrier (tm)

Thanks Walter, handy analysis. I think I'll increase the draught a little (2ft maybe).
The size is historically, and probably still true today, the biggest that could be docked in Britain given the real world dimensions of dry docks and access routes to them. In WW things are easier as all docks are identical sizes but for reality I can't make many changes to length and beam any further.

I don't tend to waste misc weight, I put enough in for the job and some margin but I'm not extravagant in my misc weight needs. The airgroup calcs were messed up and were so with the Leviathan class too.
Is there a gentlemen's rule regarding ratios of pistons to jets? Where to turboprops fit into that?

Quoted

The size is historically, and probably still true today, the biggest that could be docked in Britain given the real world dimensions of dry docks and access routes to them. In WW things are easier as all docks are identical sizes but for reality I can't make many changes to length and beam any further.

Length and beam are the main aspects that prevent you from adding more miscellaneous weights if you do not want to alter any of the other stuff like armament, armor, fuel and speed. If you think that a dock/slip can just handle your design as you have simmed it now, then surely it can hold a design that is shorter and less wide.

Quoted

I don't tend to waste misc weight, I put enough in for the job and some margin but I'm not extravagant in my misc weight needs.

Well, when it comes to planes and miscellaneous weight, you are forced to be extravagant. Compared to 30 planes @ 900 tons, 60 planes is 3600 tons (twice the planes, 4 times the miscellaneous weight), 90 planes is 8100 tons (3 times the planes, 9 times the miscellaneous weight) and 120 planes is 14400 tons (4 times the planes, 16 times the miscellaneous weight).

BTW, I have been looking around a bit with search but how is the flightdeck armor calculated? I have looked around with search but could only find the reason as to why miscellaneous weights is used for that.

Another thing I would do: kick off the absolutely ridiculous "growth" bit. You are wasting precious miscellaneous weight there. To me it should be considered to be a load of crap anyway (which the crew of the vessel will no doubt complain about the stinky matter) as it comes over as a "Oh! Let's throw some crap in there as ballast and keep this space open on the ship for that super secret electronics device that has not been designed yet and, better yet, no one anywhere in the world has even thought of to design but will do so 10 years from now so 15 years from now we can remove the crap and put that device (which we have absolutely no idea about what it will do, how heavy it will be and how much space it needs) into our ship." In reality, if you add something to a ship with a refit that is 200 tons, then the ship's displacement will increase by 200 tons and will sit a little bit lower in the water (maybe only a few millimeters).

Looking at what you want on your carrier and the miscellaneous weights needed for the stuff you can't enter on any of the tabs, I think you probably need a vessel that is at least 52,000 tons normal and, considering the amount of miscellaneous weights needed for 96 planes + 16 spares, an additional ~7000 tons miscellaneous weight for the planes (so you have a total of 9616 tons for the 96 planes + 16 spares). Looking at your miscellaneous weights breakdown, I got a few ideas to add to my design but the additional required miscellaneous weights made the carrier another 1,000 tons heavier but that is just something I accepted. My planned design is 76% heavier than your Colossus (that I wanted to base it on the Wesworld Yamato hull is partly to blame for that). On the other hand it carries 228% more miscellaneous weight than Colossus because of all the extra stuff on it as well as the number of planes it needs to carry.

Quoted

Is there a gentlemen's rule regarding ratios of pistons to jets? Where to turboprops fit into that?

Don't think there are. I think I will just assume that all post WW2 planes will require 50% more weight than the WW2 and pre WW2 planes.

Made some changes now; more draught, revised air group tailored to what can fit the hangar (80 max) and removal of all but a couple of crated aircraft and these being spare parts rather than meant as whole aircraft to be knocked up.

In 1948 I'm thinking of scrapping the freakish General Class 9.2in armed gunboats and re-using the turrets in two new heavy cruisers based on the Northumberland Class hull.

The result is not cheap, but cheaper than the Princess Royals and Iron Dukes and although they share the same gun, the older ships have triple mounts. These cruisers would be primarily used as Station Flagships overseas.

Any reason why you suddenly change the way that flightdeck armor is being simmed? Sure it is not a rule but the reason why miscellaneous weights is being used for that made sense to me and you did it on the previous version of the design as well as the previous big RN carrier design.

Also looking at it now, just 100 tons for electronic equipment seems rather low to me considering the huge amount of stuff you put on it.